CUA Law Professor Lucia Silecchia's was quoted in a June 27 article published by the National Catholic Register entitled Supreme Court ruling blasted for pro-abortion bias in Texas ruling and a June 29 article published by Crux entitled Pro-lifers call SCOTUS abortion decision a ‘new low’. See below.

Supreme Court ruling blasted for pro-abortion bias in Texas ruling

National Catholic Register
By Matt Hadro
June 27, 2016

. . .

There was “no language” about “the government’s interest in ‘preserving and promoting fetal life’” in the decision, said Lucia Silecchia, a law professor at The Catholic University of America. This was expressed in a previous case – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – but the Court didn’t invoke it in Monday’s ruling, she said.

“To have the Supreme Court address abortion without addressing this interest in any meaningful way is a new low in abortion jurisprudence,” she told CNA.

That third parties with financial interest brought the case to the Court, and not women directly affected by the law, undermined the argument that the case was about women’s rights, Silecchia added.

“Despite the fact that they dubiously asserted the rights of women, their real interest in this case was not women’s health but their own profit,” Silecchia said of “the abortion industry and abortionists” who brought the case. The clinics could have abided by the regulations, she added, but “it would cost a substantial amount of money to retrofit facilities or purchase new land.”
. . .

That deference to the states shouldn’t apply in all cases, but it should have applied in this particular case, Silecchia clarified.

The Texas law came after a massive grand jury report on horrific abuses at the Philadelphia clinic of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, which became the subject of national outrage. This and other reports of abuses in abortion clinics “should make state legislatures interested in greater regulation, not less,” Silecchia said.
. . .

However, Silecchia insisted, “women deserve higher standards of care, not lower.” And yet the ruling will “make it harder for states to pass legislation that raises the standards of care that women receive.”

As to the Court’s claim that the previous “working arrangement” between hospitals and doctors nullified the need for “admitting privileges” for abortionists, Silecchia said the Court’s term “is vague and it is hard to tell whether this is a meaningful safeguard.”

“Having a local hospital grant admitting privileges is, at least, a minimal assessment of the physician's medical competence,” she said, adding that an abortionist with an admitting privilege might be “more likely to err on the side of transport to a hospital” in case of a medical emergency.”

Pro-lifers call SCOTUS abortion decision a ‘new low’

Crux
By Kaitlyn Landgraf
June 29, 2016

. . .

“This is a new low in abortion jurisprudence,” said Lucia Silecchia, a professor of law at Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law.

“Today, all who care about the dignity of human life, not just the Catholic community, should mourn a decision that combines disrespect for the life of the unborn with a cavalier attitude toward the well-being of women,” Silecchia said.

. . .

Although yesterday’s Supreme Court decision was important, it did not directly address the key issue itself: the ethics of abortion, according to Silecchia, the law professor.

“Ultimately, though, the unintended reminder from the Court is that while the intricacies of abortion restrictions are important, they do not mask the need to take a deep, honest look at the morality of Roe itself,” said Silecchia.